Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry liveitup but nothing in the article is verifiable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyhoo (lighting cue)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not significant or known to many people since it only attracts the interest of those working or studying lighting design in theater. "Ballyhoo" is just a theatrical dictionary term used to define a certain type of lighting cue. As a result, the article is written like a chapter section or glossary term in the back of a textbook, which violates Wikipedia guidelines being that this site is not a dictionary or guidebook. The two book sources in the article are also just manuals and textbooks to stage lighting and I did not find any actual books about the history of Ballyhoo, so this term might not be widely used (I myself am a theater student and have never even heard of this word until now). I also searched the two men who the term "Ballyhoo" was named after according to the article on various search engines, including Google [1] [2] and Bing [3] [4] and did not find anything proving that they actually invented this cue, were major figures in stage lighting, or existed at all. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, WP:Notability, WP:DICT and norm. Iglooflame (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I could find about Ballyhoo in lighting books were dictionary definitions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—If the article isn't a hoax, then it's a good article. The additional information provided in the article (names of inventors, their background, etc.) move this past a simple dictionary entry. If the WP article stopped at the end of the first sentence, then I'd agree with a deletion based on WP:DICT. But this is not a good application of DICT, and, assuming good faith for the offline references, two references is enough to establish notability for me. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The problem is that none of that historical information is backed up with any reliable sources per verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sanz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Teenager with no claim to notability per WP:BIO. His JO experience doesn't go beyond the state meet level (second place in a team event being the only result noted), and the claim of first place in a mousetrap car competition was a team result, not an individual result. The fact that he has competed in the state meet has made me shy away from a speedy delete; an attempt to assert significance is made, but I don't see it being enough. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His 2nd place in the relay team event wasn't the only swimming event that was referenced. 3 individual events have been referenced. Also before you said that the relay was the only noticed, there was 1 individual event referenced. I've added 2 more to further emphasize his notability. Soulboost (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Keep swimming, Brian, and you may warrant your own Wiki page some day down the road.JoelWhy (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish general notability, nor is there evidence of meeting the specific inclusion guidelines for athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the points discussed above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per above who (correctly) cited the relevant policies. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Morrisseau[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined. AFD not done properly by another editor. Seems to be WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. bd2412 T 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google returns social media sites, wikipedia, linkdin and not much else. If someone can update his article with something like an RS, ill reconsider, but as it stands, seems notable for only one event. Bonewah (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Political Graveyard entry no help. Dru of Id (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the article can be traced back to WP:OR. It has been suggested that article meets notability via Google hits; WP:GNUM would argue otherwise. In fact, one also learns in Google that the subject of the article has repeatedly declared himself to be the "VERY (caps his) Foreign Minister of the Second Vermont Republic." It is important to note that during election cycles news media often cover even the most obscure candidates, if only for the entertainment of readers/viewers and also so that the stations or print outlets involved are not later criticized for not covering these obscure or fringe candidates. The subject of this article has never received the extensive coverage associated with a committed campaign. In fact, according to the record, the subject here campaigns primarily by letters and Internet postings; and according to VT Sec'y of State records, the subject raises no campaign money and maintains no discernible campaign staff. Despite registering any number of times as a Liberty Union, Republican, Democrat, or independent candidate, the subject's vote getting ability seems only to comparably challenge that of lint; the subject has described one of his showings in an election where 99.5% of the voters chose someone else as having "come in third." Also WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NRVE, and WP:RSUW. The long, rambling, fact challenged (George W. Bush and Karl Rove are not Republicans?) and poorly sourced quote from the subject of the article that comprises the bulk of the text would seem to be the clincher, WP:UNDUE. Vttor (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN. There's a small chance I'm misreading that because of the complete American-centric-ism of the article; if that's the case, fix the article and ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Di Bona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown artist of dubious notability. Created by a single-purpose account (User:Hb91), possibly conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Probably created by article subject. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few exhibitions, but more or less what one would expect from a professional artist. Professional does not equal notable in this context, and as LibStar has pointed out, this person does not meet the criteria set out at WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyumi Puzzle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY - article offers no claim of notability; the external links lead to sites without even any reviews. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I considered a merge to United Command International, the maker of the game, but I'm not convinced the company is notable either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks pretty run of the mill to me. Chris857 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:RS. If references are added to the article, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyways are highways[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definition of a garage-band article. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable band. No proof of notabily shown, no links on Google Search, Books and News. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love the name, but unfortunately I have to say Delete per above. --Coin945 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.JoelWhy (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Maddux[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if notable. All mentions in sources only seem to be name-drops in reference to his company. Musical works are only borderline at best — member of a band, but all outside work seems to amount only to a John Michael Montgomery single that did not make the mainstream charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncharted musician; personal resume; insufficent notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Inappropriate venue for a merge discussion. This is an out of process nomination. The result of an AFD can be merge or redirect as a alternative to deletion, sure, but this is Articles for Deletion. A merge discussion is the appropriate place for this discussion. Closing as an inappropriate AFD. v/r - T P 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

132nd Street (Manhattan)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unsourced and I cannot find any evidence that this street meets General notability or Notability Guidelines for streets. We also have an article called List of streets in Manhattan where the information on this article can be put there and the article be redirected. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems of lacking citations and evidence of notability or are suitable for merging/redirect:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All The nomination proposes to redirect and merge the content of these articles. This is not deletion and so the proposition does not belong here. See WP:MAD for more details. Warden (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, merging, and redirecting are all valid results of an AfD. These should be Merged and redirected to List of streets in Manhattan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all as The Bushranger says, that is a valid outcome. This forum is actually supposed to be named "Articles for Discussion" (as all the other XfD processes are) but for technical reasons, it has not been renamed. Imzadi 1979 → 08:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of streets in Manhattan. Dough 48 72 16:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^converse 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - none of them get close to meeting the notability requirements, almost all of them make no claims to anything of interest. Wikipedia isn't a street directory, they shouldn't even be in a list article. If you want to find your way around Manhattan, buy a map! Sionk (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia isn't an X directory" is really a meaningless statement that could be used as a claim to delete any X. It's one thing to claim that not every street merits coverage; it's another to claim that no street (or a locale's streets as a whole) can be an encyclopedia topic (and if there's any place on earth that merits coverage of its streets, it's Manhattan). WP:NOTDIR is more about the form and content of articles rather than article topics, i.e. articles on businesses shouldn't include contact information for prospective customers, articles on products shouldn't normally include pricing, that sort of thing. One might as well claim that "Wikipedia is not a business directory" means we shouldn't have any articles on businesses. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By street directory, I was referring to the list article, which obviously confused matters here, sorry. Sionk (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above without prejudice to splitting off again should sourced content counsel. But I also agree with Warden that at minimum this kind of result should be attempted first through normal editing and discussion (WP:BRD, merge tagging, etc.) rather than resorting to AFD as a first option; see WP:ATD. I see nothing on these articles' talk pages, and we should consider that a failure here. It is a negative aspect of current Wikipedia culture that particular editing outcomes are too often sought through binding pseudo-legalistic processes such as AFD rather than through organic, open ended editing and discussion. People want their way, and they want it within a week. Or maybe AFD should just be made less formal and less time constrained where something other than deletion for blatant policy violation is sought. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of streets in Manhattan includes numbered east-west streets. Some of these (e.g., Claremont Avenue and Front Street) don't run east-west; some are not numbered. I'm not sure that merge and redirect is appropriate for all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That article should really be named "List of numbered streets in Manhattan" after carefully looking at it, although we can always simply add the "named" street entries and make some modifications to the lede to fix the problem Malik Shabazz bought up. I honestly would rather have all the articles deleted because when we search an article that does not exist on Wikipedia, we are taken to page that shows us the closest relevant articles and since the list articles already has sections for the streets nominated, it would definitely pop up as a suggestion, so redirects are close to useless here. If we want to add information about the streets to the list article after the individual ones had been deleted, all we has to do is copy the contents to a word document, save it, then add it to the list article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tata_Institute_of_Fundamental_Research. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting Students Research Programme[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic does not have notability for having a separate article. It is covered in its main article Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Anbu121 (talk me) 09:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no significant information in it to merge except the lead, which is also present in its parent article. If merged, the remaining information present in this article becomes a trivia in the context of its parent article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^express 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. About three lines total should do the trick. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

209: A Story[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable book. The article tells you nothing other than who it was written by and its date of publication Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book by non-notable author. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-published book; fails WP:NBOOK. Another example of why we need a speedy criteria for self-published books... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found some sources, but they cover one set period in time. I'm thinking that this might be best served as a merge and redirect into the author's article or vice-versa. The sources I found kind of cover the author and the book, but I don't think it would cover notability for both of them. I'm not entirely certain as of yet that it even covers enough to show notability for one of them (so I'm withholding my vote until I find more sources), but it's a start.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see where the book was mentioned in relation to a museum exhibit in the Museum of Victoria, but it's such a brief mention that I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, if anything: [5] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^soliloquize 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources may exist and if they are found, this article would be a great candidate for WP:DRV v/r - T P 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jori Olkkonen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Video game music composer. Fails WP:BIO, no coverage in reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Keep - Olkkonen wrote soundtracks for several Commodore 64 video games (published through major publishers through retail channels) and wrote a number of articles and programs for C=lehti and MikroBITTI (which were notable and widely distributed publications at the time), so I don't think WP:BIO or lack of sources is an issue. Not that much internet prominence or Google Books hits, but what can you expect from someone who made most notable contributions in 1980s and 1990s. The dead-tree sources obviously exist. (Can't add them myself because my own old copies of the magazines in question are half a country away. Sorry.) This index of old C=Lehti/MikroBITTI articles lists several reviews, program listings and articles by him, and I have a nagging suspicion this list is incomplete. Oh, and the program listings were also released as runnable programs in floppy/tape format - major publisher investing time and energy on a single person's work has to count. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The list of articles written by him—in a defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was only around for 4 years, I might add—does not help establish notability. WP:BIO asks if the person "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). I have not found significant coverage of him in reliable sources. If you think such coverage exists, the burden is on you to show it. Terence7 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was around for 4 years"? Nope, 6 years (1987-1991). It was published by a major magazine house and distributed nationally. MikroBITTI, on the other hand, started in 1984 and is still being published. What else do you require for a magazine to be considered a reliable source? Please don't belittle these magazines, they were very significant in their day. If you dismiss dead-tree sources, you may as well dismiss the whole requirement to have reliable sources entirely.
Getting hanged up on being "subject of" articles is ridiculous. He wrote programs. They were vetted by the magazine editors and found to be sufficiently interesting to grace the pages. His works were the subject of the articles.
On WP:BURDEN: Yep, I'm willing to add the sources, since you're unwilling to do so. Now, the burden on keeping the article alive is on you, not me - I'm not proposing articles to be deleted on unreasonable timeframes just because they lack sources that demonstrably do exist (or, if I bring them to AfD, they just get handwaved as insignificant "niche" publications). I already said I was willing to add sourcing, but it's not available to me personally, being in dead-tree format and thus a little bit challenging to access. I could do it, but I can't do it in AfD timeframe. What is the best course of action to ensure the article is properly sourced and we're actually building an encyclopedia?
(Also, if you could describe me where you tried to look for sources, that would be immensely helpful. The fact that you didn't get C=Lehti's publication run right, even when it's listed in WP's article on the magazine, suggests this wasn't a particularly exhaustive search.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm getting "hung up on" that pesky requirement that a subject needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What you've described are articles written by the subject himself. That's simply not good enough, even if you can get the sources.

(And I didn't get the publication run right? 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991. That's 5 years, if you assume January 1, '87 to December 31, '91. I'm assuming it was less than that. In fact, it could be as little as barely over 3 years (December '87 to January '91). Indeed, the WP article itself says it was published "roughly every two months" and there were "29 magazine issues in total." That sounds like two and a half years to me.)

Perhaps a sensible approach, so that this content that you care about is not lost, would be for you to move this article out of namespace to your personal userspace until you can show that it meets the notability guideline. Terence7 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably Finland's most famous video game musician ever. JIP | Talk 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per wwwwolf and JIP. ~dee^(talk?) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to argue for a strong keep, you really ought to spell out your reasons more clearly. I've shot down every rationale that has been advanced for keeping this article. Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly some editors are making a claim, even a plausible one of notability. However, WP:NRVE, and I'm not seeing that evidence. As a practical matter, pretty much anything we say in this article is going to be a reflection of the subject's self-published statements, not reflected through independent sources. That's the reason we have WP:GNG, and why, short of better sourcing, I'm left to argue for deletion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per joe decker. All articles, especially those on living people, require independent, reliable sources. They are lacking here. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^prattle 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a BLP that makes grand claims which are unsubstantiated. As others have said, there is one website interview in a 'tell us everything about yourself' format, clearly a non-independent source. Without even one independent, reliable, in-depth source about Olkkonen there is no justification to keep this resumé. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't decide either way on this. On the one hand, I have had experiences myself (eg: with Matt Bielby), where the article was put up for AfD, and when I explained there were reliable print sources from the 1980s and 1990s, several people whacamoled it because they couldn't find it on Google in 30 seconds. On the other hand, even taking that into account, this guy doesn't really have seem to have done that much - he's certainly not on the same notability rung as Rob Hubbard who has had numerous commercial works published. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the seven-year-old article on the Finnish-language Wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'll assume that the sources wwwwolf is talking about exist. The fact that they are off-line, possibly niche, or foreign have absolutely no bearing on my !vote – these are non-issues that don't detract from the reliability of the sources in any way. However, the subject of the BLP seems to be the author of the articles in the offered sources. Writing magazine articles does not establish notability, being the subject of articles does. If this person were truly notable, then one could reasonably expect that a few magazine articles about him would have been written during his run as a programmer and author. Since none have been offered, online or off, I am left to assume that he is non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guillaume2303's research indicates that the early "keep" opinions likely apply to another, more notable person of the same name, which means that they are not taken into consideration here. The "keep" opinions by Jleibowitz101 and 159.245.32.2 are also not taken into account as they are not based on our inclusion rules and practices. Sandstein 06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Goswami[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm just not convinced this article really demonstrates notability. He played a small role in a couple films, he wrote books outside his field for very minor publishers, and... er, that's about it. I'm just not buying it, and the lack of good WP:RS - this has major primary sourcing issues - is another mark against it. Perhaps something can be salvaged, but I'm not convinced the case has been made. ETA: Guillaume2303's point (below) that there are multiple people of this name, and this article appears to be on the much less notable one is rather significant. 86.** IP (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amit Goswami is a thinker in a long line of philosophers and scientists who emphasize the role of consciousness and subjectivity in human knowledge and, indeed, in the construction of reality. Kant himself delved into the subjectivity of knowledge and the distinction between the thing-in-itself and our perceptions. From Kant onwards, much development along these lines of thought occurred. In Schopenhauer, for example, German idealism came to the point of claiming that the thing-in-itself was nothing more than Will and its many expressions. Via Schopenhauer, and others, Freud developed his ideas of the unconscious mind and its drives. Thus, Goswami's work and ideas are very much in one particular 'mainstream' of thought and well deserve presentation in Wikipedia. — Jleibowitz101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question The article states that Goswami is a physicist at UoO, however I could not find a faculty page for him. [6]. This may have been because he retired, however I cannot find any indication on an official UoO page that he held any notable position within that institution. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "Goswami" (no first name) is listed as a former associate professor at the UoO [7]. He appears also here under his full name [8]. There is also a list of publications by Amit Goswami hosted by the UoO. [9]. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Was Associate-Prof the highest rank he reached? I do not see how he could pass WP:PROF's criteria for notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it remarkable that Jleibowitz argues that this thinker is an intellectual descendant of Kant, but even if he happens to work in the same tradition as Kant and others, so what? That surely doesn't establish notability, which seems to be the primary issue here. Phiwum (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of Google Scholar presence, with some citation counts exceeding 100. K2709 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in his peer reviewed publications from what I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar should only be used as a rough metric for notability since it counts non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. blogs, web-sites). --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems notable enough, both for his work and his public persona. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (but, I wouldn't object to it being deleted). Citation count is nice, so he's definitely had some impact on his field. But, he doesn't appear to be a giant in the field, either.JoelWhy (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a short summary of what impact he had on his field? For example, what was his most notable discovery. Has this discovery lead to other areas of important study? FYI, the WP:PROF guidelines advise that google-scholar should be used as a "rough guide only" since it may count non non-peer reviewed publications in it's metric. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no idea what impact he's had on the field. But, generally, when you have 100+ articles siting your work, that is a pretty good indicating that you have has some form of impact on the field. I deal with a great many scientists as part of my job, but I am not a scientist and I certainly am not an expert in this guy's field of work. I'm just making an educated guess that he's impacted the field to some extent.JoelWhy (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to see any reliable secondary source that shows any impact on any field. I was just surprised to see the word "definite" used in your original statement. I'd urge you to re-consider your decision if it's based on guesswork alone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any potential we can actually make a decent article? Do reliable independent sources exist on the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several persons named "Goswami A" in the Web of Science. One of them is a prolific physicist (> 200 articles published), but his address is given as "Bhabha Atom Res Ctr". Searching for "Goswami A AND Oregon" renders 21 articles, with a total of 133 citations, highest count 27, h-index = 7. GS gives a high citation count for his book. Books are not included in WoS' citation analysis, but doing a "cited reference search" for the book title and author name shows a total of 81 citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. As noted by Salimfadhley, the much higher count in GS may be because GS will also counts citations from blogs, websites, etc. (cf. the curious history of Ike Antkare...) Unless this is the same person as the one at the Bhabha Centre, these citation counts don't show any large influence on the field, I think. The link to a small list of publications at the UoO site provided by Paul Barlow above, suggests that they are different persons. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it's a different person, Amit Goswami is at oregon whilst the Other A Goswami is currently at Bhabha Atom Res Ctr: [10]. Goswami appears to be a relatively common second name. Amit Goswami does not appear to pass WP:PROF (81 citations appears low). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, perhaps user:Jleibowitz101 was refering to the other Goswamii! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best to delete. For notability we require proof positive and it's not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The article should be kept. Even though he presumably retired some years ago, I had no trouble finding a reference to him on the University of Oregon's website (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/fac/goswami.html). A quick check on Amazon also shows that his textbook "Quantum Mechanics" is still in print and that, as usual, some people think it's a good book while others think it's awful. So clearly he is at least quite entitled to be considered a proper scientist and not some kind of 'fringe' or 'pseudo' scientist. But of course the Amit Goswami article on Wikipedia is not there because he is an important theoretical physicist, but because of the series of books he has written attempting to apply the findings of quantum mechanics to areas which most scientists would probably consider outside the realm of physics altogether. His basic argument, that scientific inquiry can also be based on the premise that consciousness is the primary reality from which material phenomena derive, seems to be no less tenable than its opposite and would no doubt find suport from a number of Western philosophers, from Berkeley to Bradley. His extension of this premise into more speculative realms may strike many people as somewhat bizarre, in English-speaking countries at any rate, but if his books arouse sufficient interest or controversy, or stimulate widespread discussion, that is surely sufficient reason for allowing him space in an encyclopedia as comprehensive as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp10 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Tp10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's basically an argument that Goswami would be notable as a fringe scientist, but I don't see any evidence for that, either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in fact my preceding comment argues, whether rightly or wrongly, that he is "not some kind of 'fringe'...scientist", and goes on to suggest that most of Goswami's books might be better described as falling under the heading of "speculative" science or philosophy.--Tp10 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear that he doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines as a regular academic, speculative, philosophic, or other. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Guillaume2303's recent research. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of if he is right or wrong, at least his theories are new and fresh and deserve that we reflect on them. I say that we should at least have an article on him in wikipedia to at least see what books and article he has written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk • contribs)
- That's not a policy-based argument; the issue is whether he's notable. 86.** IP (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Guillaume2303 had me at "h-index of 7". Not a notable scholar. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. v/r - T P 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea–Serbia relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. this article is more about yugoslavian- north Korea relations, than Serbia. Fails WP:GNG. Section on trade appears pure original research. Serbia is one of many countries to condemn nuclear tests, nothing surprising. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't love these articles, but this is pretty much IDONTLIKEIT defined. The nominator should give these nominations a miss. Sources are showing, that's enough. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did you even look at the article? There are only 2 sources showing for condemning nuclear tests. When almost every country does. Are there sources covering state visits, trade, aid between the 2 countries? Please show evidence of actual Serbia -north Korea relations, otherwise your !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs some tidy-up and possible updating, but the content is a valid discussion of the relationship between Serbia and North Korea. I am tagging it to WP:Korea and WP:Serbia as they will be more knowledgeable about in this proposal. NealeFamily (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being a "valid discussion" does not mean it's notable.LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment both of the above !votes fail to provide any sources to establish WP:GNG. nor do they address my other concern that this article is more about Yugoslavia North Korea relations. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of North Korea and Foreign relations of Serbia, with a redirect to the former. Not notable enough for an independent article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 40 years with a close relationship, between Yugoslavia to Serbia and PROK on the other side. Sounds notable to me. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the length of the relationship does not confer notability. please provide sources of actual relationship. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - Back when serbia was part of communist yugoslavia there were consistent ongoing relations between the two, as Bearian mentioned above 40 years is quite a great deal of time for relations to form, granted its slowed in the last 20 years since Yugoslavia's fall, the topic itself is notable, a merge would be fully acceptable and practical, though with reference improval if someone has any to share the topic could be easily salvaged. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the keep !voters have supplied evidence of significant coverage in third party sources as required for WP:GNG. I'm still waiting. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bilateral relations articles have been consistently kept at AfD, and are considered to be part of the "gazetteer" part of Wikipedia's mission. I.E., they are "automatically notable", or as close to it as any subject can be - the sources in the article currently are, in fact, sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. they are not inherently notable. there are a mere 2 sources describing Serbia's condemnation of north korea nuclear tests. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My observation has been that they tend to be kept, and they should be kept as part of Wikipedia's gazetteer remit. Are there only two sources? WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have done extensive searches for sources and cannot find anything, as a keep !voter the onus is on you to fix ut and find actual sources. This whole AfD demonstrates a complete lack of sources because none of the keep !voters can find a thing. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^speak 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale - Would like to see more discussion on the sources used in the article as well as the availability of other sources. —SW— ^spout 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand such a topic 'has legs' because of its international scope. International relations can hardly escape the news radar, can they? A request for expert help, or more references at least, would be a better solution to this problem. The existing sources are poor, but then so are the sources in almost all the other diplomatic relation articles at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again another keep !vote without a shred of sources supplied. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. just because other similar articles are poorly sources is really a very weak reason for justifying keep for this one. this article has been listed for over 2 weeks and not 1 person can find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made my argument quite clear. As Bushranger has said, there is general consensus on WP that these international relations articles are likely to be 'notable', because of the nature of the subject. WP:GNG says "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Are you seriously suggesting there is no likelihood of finding IRS about the subject, in Serbo-Croat or another language? Sionk (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quite simply, there is no inherent notability to bilateral articles, instead of saying there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, show some. I doubt any of the keep !voters have spent even 5 minutes searching. But happen to turn up and say WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't fancy answering my question then? Continually repeating the same response hardly moves things forward. Sionk (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

didn't fancy looking for sources as what is normally required to show a poorly sourced article as notable? is it because there aren't any? LibStar (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a 'No'. Sionk (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there are no additional sources?LibStar (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there definitely is not inherent notability for bilateral relations articles, this one appears to be substantial: during the communist period in Yugoslavia, there were substantial ties between the countries (unlike Warsaw Pact states, North Korea wasn't a threat to Tito), and as Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia, it would be silly to have one NK-Yugoslavia article and another NK-Serbia article. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again not one source provided. There are separate articles for predecessor states, eg Japan–Soviet Union relations. far from silly. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering doesn't seem to be working. If the countries involved are bigger than a breadbox and if there are sources showing, the nominator would be advised not to waste our time with these nominations, consensus being what it is. Yes, most of them are pretty bad in their current state. I wish people wouldn't bother to create them unless they were gonna do a good job of it. But as topics? Encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you bothered to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Nobody has demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources about North Korea–Yugoslavia relations are not relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree partially, although I still support the merges to the "Foreign relations of X" articles as I said above. But sources about North Korea-Yugoslavia relations are relevant...to a hypothetical article about historical North Korea-Yugoslavia relations. And given the amount of sourcing there is for that historical relationship, that article should probably be created, since notability is not temporary. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: but they are not relevant to this article or this discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Simply because I don't think that relations between these two countries have been notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Even casting a very wide google net, nothing significant showed up. The subject is already covered in Foreign relations of North Korea#Serbia, but interestingly, there is no back reference in Foreign relations of Serbia, which one would expect if the countries had any notable dealings. There's really nothing worth merging here, so in my opinion, deletion seems like a reasonable solution. I take a very dim view of any "x is inherently notable" arguments in general, and the rest of these arguments seem like paraphrases of WP:OSE. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perverse effects of vaccination[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A large pile of stuff cobbled together about vaccination. None of the references directly address the subject of the article. No merits as a standalone article. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research/synthesis. Not a likely search term, and nothing worth merging, so no redirect to Vaccination. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, Interesting idea, so I like the idea of merging it in the vaccine page if there are good citations to it. Heck, w/ enough citations, it may warrant its own page. But, I just don't see enough at the moment to warrant inclusion. I even did a search on pubmed for Perverse + Vaccination but only came up w/ 3 articles.JoelWhy (talk)
Delete. It's an interesting read, indeed, but doesn't really stand alone well, nor stand well at all in the scope of this project. WP:SYNTHESIS, aye... — Isarra ༆ 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree with the previous editors... it's a good read and well written, but a high percentage of the article draws conclusions based on published sources. If all the SYNTH was removed, then there wouldn't be enough left for a standalone article to make sense. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristino Carrera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated less than two days after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. And per links provided in the article, has never played a game for a team in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maid Jaganjac[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally on the grounds that this article has been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG & the Serbian First League is not fully professional nor is the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Mutants (radio)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page does not meet the GNG, has zero supporting references from reliable sources, all the information appears to be OR. A quick search of Google shows multiple websites created for the show (on Weebly and Webs, among others) that haven't been active for some time, along with a Facebook page that appears to be used on rare occasions. Outside of that, there isn't any outside sources showing a notability for this "radio show" (which is actually broadcast on a cable television channel, not radio).

With the lack of sources, the page not meeting or violating WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:RS, along with WP:NPOV, I am nominating this page for deletion. Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (or Speedy) Delete: As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it isn't technically a viable speedy, but it should definitely go. Doesn't even try to assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible article about a lowly-viewed/listened radio/cable access show in a non-notable market. Squarespace is that-a-way, fellas. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:RSs, without which we can't even begin to measure it against other requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarullah Jan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not assert notability per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cricket. Zafarullah Jan meets none of the three requirements nor has he met the basic requirements of participating in an international event. Originally listed as CSD but article creator removed CSD tag. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she has... appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". Jan has played first-class cricket, which is a major form of cricket, at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. He meets one of the requirements of WP:CRIN and the requirements of WP:ATH. Unfortunately there seems to be little known about this guy, but that isn't rare among Pakistani cricketers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:ATH#Basic criteria “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” So far only one source has been given: the Cricket Archive which looks to me to be a trivial source. I will concede that it he did apparently play in the first-class cricket which apparently is at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. According to the one source he only played in one game and he seemingly did not play very much in that game. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CricketArchive is an authority when it comes to information on cricket, as such is a highly reliable source. There's also no "apparently" about either of those two facts: He did play first-class cricket, and first-class cricket (alongside List A and Twenty20) is the highest level of domestic cricket in the ten full member nations of the International Cricket Council. We have plenty of cricketers who played one first-class match: Neville Shelmerdine for example simply turned up. At the end of the day, cricket is very selective on what is deemed notable: as they've played first-class cricket, regardless of the number of sources (note sources for living people require at least one reliable source, of which Jan has), then they're deemed notable, once again by WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. This AfD back in 2010 is very similar, or even more extreme, an AfD for Hooker (Kent cricketer). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet the basic notability requirement of multiple sources. Only one. Even the one listed below is just the same information regurgitated. Since neither is a newsworthy source nor a printed material (just stats) I do not see how this is not trivial. Regardless of whether he played at the top level or not, there is no non-trivial sources. Much like the two AfDs that you listed above, this AfD will be responded to by mostly WikiProject Cricket members, so it won't be deleted. I would wholeheartedly withdraw my nomination if someone could find multiple non-trivial published sources. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's also ESPNcricinfo which presents exactly the same information as CricketArchive (but there are only so many ways to present this kind of data). While Jan has passed the requirements of having played in at least one major cricket match, in these situations an article of this sort is worth so little I can't vote keep, but neither can I happily vote delete because "I don't like it" isn't policy. I'm sure this article will be kept, but if it was to be deleted it would not be a terrible loss to the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Nev, but I do fear we open up to attack from the mob that has in the past attempted to have less notable cricketers deleted. I'm quite the deletionist, I'll openly admit that! But, when it comes to major cricket and those who have played it, I feel our job is to provide full coverage of it, be it Wilfred Rhodes 1,110 matches, or Jan's one. As Nev points out, there's only so many ways to present data on cricketers - even ones with distinguished careers, such as Neil McCorkell who I'm working on, are presented in the same way, other than book sources which are hard to come by, it wasn't until he passed his 100th birthday the other day that multiple sources appeared online. While it wouldn't be missed, first-class is first-class, saying one player can't have article because he played once as opposed to fifteen times, is being selective and doesn't represent full coverage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He qualifies under WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Doesn't mean that it's not in need of work. Johnlp (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Johnlp e^xtra999 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnlp says it well. --Dweller (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Meets a subject-matter notability guideline (WP:CRIN). Needs work, but that's not cause for deletion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect / nomination voided. The article was redirected to American Idol (season 11) independently of this discussion. No administrative action taken. Der yck C. 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Gray[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This non-notable American Idol contestant that did not even reach the semi-finals of American Idol (season 11) fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources in the article consist of videos of her performances in the audition/Hollywood phases of the show. Aspects (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her performance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show surely gave her notability; many fans were raving that she was "amazing" and "unjustly cut." Perhaps the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia right now, unless she makes another comeback. Creativity97 (Talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally, participants in reality TV shows only get their own WP article if they become notable in their own right outside of the show. In the meantime, a listing in the American Idol season 11 article should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I suppose a mention in the American Idol (season 11) page would be sufficient as well. Delete if that's what the consensus comes to. Creativity97 (Talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to American Idol (season 11). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge—I'm honestly surprised that there is not more coverage about her, considering the apparent outrage at her getting cut... you would think the Ellen appearance would lead to some press, but it hasn't. I found one feature article in her home town newspaper... and that was it. Merge it, redirect it, and someone can re-fork it later if she becomes more notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. I think WP:USUAL comes into play as well, here - she's in the early days of what might end up being a promising career. If she were to end up with a hit single or album, an article might be appropriate. Not yet, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no problem with a merger here, but I don't want this to be a precedent. Some people have been cut early from Idol, yet have gone on to notable careers. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Nominator is also article's only contributor. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Go-Topless Day[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

housekeeping--article already exists at Go Topless Day AltSkitMan (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bandzoogle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product just doesn't seem at all notable. JoelWhy (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure about seems, but the first hits on google are primary, twitter, a2im, facebook and myspace in that order. The only refs I found close to reliable weren't, including a blog article written by someone who works at Bandzoogle, written for the Washington Times[11] (would fail WP:RS on several counts), and a few other blog articles and a news release or two that all would be short of clearly demonstrating notability. I'm open minded, but I found lots of social media linkage (good SEO) but nothing significant from an independent, reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The journalist who wrote the Communities at The Washington Times article sited above does not work for Bandzoogle. She works for Communities at The Washington Times, which is completely separate from Bandzoogle. Please see also revised reference list. --CandleOfFaith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but "My comrades at Bandzoogle - a music website development platform - are sponsoring SeeTalkGrow with web-hosting and site layout templates. They were even kind enough to offer me a special deal for SeeTalkGrow viewers. Specifically, six months of free webhosting and site design widgets when viewers use SeeTalkGrow as a referrer." (SeeTalkGrow is the author's project) so I still question the independence of this blog article. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Perhaps the best thing to do then would simply be to remove that particular reference? I have recently added others that are more objective.

Reply That link is fine for what it is, it doesn't have to be removed, but it would probably be good to note that she is involved. The key is that the link isn't "independent", thus can't establish notability. It can still be used to provide information, like any other primary link. WP:N covers notability, and to be demonstrated notable, it is generally accepted that a subject needs a couple of articles by publications that are independent of the subject matter, ie: not primary links such as their own website or written by someone affiliated. Primary links can't be used to prove the subject is "important" (notable), since they are talking about themselves. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bother It seems someone already deleted the Washington Times link. It's weird though, I don't see it in the edit history. Anyway ... I added new objective references including Hypbot and TechDirt, both of which seem like reliable media sources. I know Hypbot is. Also, a site called BandWriter. The article is pretty enthusiastic sounding, but it is a source unconnected to Bandzoogle. Let me know what you think. Thanks! CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandleOfFaith (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard Also added Billboard.biz reference. Billboard is one of the most high profile magazines in the music business, so I think these new references should fix our problem. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbot is a self published blog, it isn't professionally vetting, and written by one person,Bruce Houghton, so it generally fails WP:RS as a reliable source. Techdirt is a group blog, with articles submitted by the readers. Slashdot.org is exactly like this and is not a reliable source, so my guess is that it isn't as well. To be "reliable", it must be vetted and edited by professionals. This is broadly defined, but almost every small group blog, user submitted blog or self published website is not going to make the grade. They are sometimes useful for non-controversial material, but not to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plain promo Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Feedback? Can you point out what in the article comes off as promo so it can be edited? Thanks. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems are a.o. tone and details. I will make a draft on the talkpage insterad of discussing it here in detail. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you. I usually write freelance PR so any help you can give me to get a more journalistic tone would be great.

Delete as lacking coverage by independent third party sources. Ping my talk page if they're added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barnes (baseball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography is a borderline WP:GNG/WP:ATHLETE case. DYK seeks further resolution on whether this is a notable subject. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. From WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." Also, subject may meet NSPORTS as a competitor in the World University Baseball Championship, which is an international competition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Boston Red Sox minor league players as a bio that is insufficient for its own page at this time, but that has the potential to deserve one in due time. The question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". This is the type of article that I personally would like to see kept but that fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no consensus on WP that being an All-American confers permanent notability for college baseball players. There was a time when he would have until the end of the season the following year to meet either ATHLETE or GNG. I personally, would prefer to hold him to this standard and give him a chance to be called up this season or set some Minor League records. The benefit to wikipedia is retention of encyclopedic detail. If the article result is deletion, maybe we could agree to hold this in the article incubator until the end of September out of respect for the old policy. I would vote to keep if this article had sufficient biographical detail about his high school career to give the article the feel that we have the ability to produce a biographical sketch with encyclopedic content. It would then pass WP:ITSLOCAL in my eyes. One fact about his high school career fails this standard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see several articles about him (not just stats or game summaries) as sources for the article, which should be enough to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Accomplished amateur and high-profile first-round pick. Meets WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every first-round draft pick gets massive local and regional coverage, plus some national coverage (Baseball America, etc.). It seems that people have shifted the standards here in the past few days. How is this AfD, and several other pending AfDs, different from the dozens if not hundreds of previously merged or deleted pages for first round picks or minor leaguers? — NY-13021 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for unnamed articles, but the only ones I see getting merged or deleted have no coverage outside of the routine variety. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference is that people are paying attention on this one. Most of those other articles on first-round picks could also have been kept by the WP:GNG (which trumps all) if anyone had bothered to look for sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article deleted as an intra-Wiki copyright violation The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Ground Forces[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a content fork of Libyan Army (1951–2011) and National Liberation Army (Libya). Its "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya period" and "Combat Experience" sections are verbatim copy-pastes from the former article, and its "2011 transitional period and restructuring" section is a copy-paste from the latter. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly for futher discussion of this issue please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army. No point in copy-pasting arguments and posts. Secondly, content fork is no reason for deletion or merge. POV fork is. Also as the nominated article deals with organization in existence since 1959 till today, while second one deals with 1959-2011 period. That one is POV fork. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Libyan Army (1951–2011) has a history of years, whereas Libyan Ground Forces is merely days old. I think everyone can see which of the two is the fork. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to National Liberation Army (Libya) – WP:POVFORK and copyvio. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also see my comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate article. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. As large parts of this article were taken from (1951-2011) without attribution, this article was a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Generacia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band article, has remained unsourced since it's creation 8 years ago, and it's notability is questionable at best Jac16888 ^Talk 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the band are notable. The first page of Google News archives results when searching in Bulgarian include [12], [13], [14]. Given that searching for the band's name is likely to result in as many false positives as searching in English for "new generation" it might be significant work to go through the available sources. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable Arved (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to National Liberation Army (Libya) . v/r - T P 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan National Army[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This very recently created article is absolutely redundant. We already have Libyan Army (1951–2011) about the pre-2011 army and National Liberation Army (Libya) which describes the 2011-onwards army. Everything written in this new, third, article can be easily inserted in either of the two older articles. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article TaalVerbeteraar refers to was moved without consesus and without any source backing this move, he himself provided no source for his claim that "state ceased to exist" and that "armed forces ceased to exist". Morever there is no single source which refers to current Libyan army as "National Liberation Army" which was used to describe all anti-Gaddafi militarized forces during civil war, including local militias and also Tripoli insurgents or tribesmen such as Tebu during Fezzan campaign and their push to Murzuq and Qatron. In reality no unified, centralized organization existed and its existance caesed with end of civil war and loss of unificational goal of anti-Gaddafi forces which in some cases fought against each other (current events in Sabha or before that in Kufra for example). However name of current armed forces is sourced, Libyan Navy for example, as a branch of armed forces, celebrated back in November their 49th anniversary [15] what goes completely against what TaalVerbeteraar claims (armed forces, navy included, ceased to exist and post-2011 navy is completely new). Lastly, fact that I didnt nominate moved page for deletion, as I should have, has nothing to do with fact that before creation of Libyan National Army article there was no article dealing with armed forces of Libya which is now created, backed by sources and aside TaalVerbeteraar no one raised one objections towards it. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move EllsworthSK refers to was not actually carried out by me, but by User:Petri Krohn, although I supported it. In your consideration of this deletion proposal, please also note Libyan Air Force, a content fork of Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) created by the same user, and Libyan Ground Forces, yet another word-for-word content fork, again created by the same user. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, wikipedia is not democracy but move has to be backed by consensus, sources and in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Two of these things were completely ignored by User:Petri Krohn. As a for fork article, there are two of them Libyan Army (1951–2011) and Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) bytheway both copyvio per Wikipedia:CSD#G12 of these sources [16] and [17]. I´ll get to that later, however thanks for notification. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. And let me relate on National Liberation Army beeing the armed forces of Libya issue just a little more. NLA is name given to all brigades/kateebas/militias units, for example also Misrata militias. If those militias are therefore armed forces of Libya than how come that they are beeing (or at least government is trying to) integrated into armed forces like this source states [18]. Naturally there are gazillion other sources saying the same thing, we have a lot of them in wiki articles already, for example in National Liberation Army (Libya)#2011_transitional_period_and_restructuring article itself. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, EllsworthSK, there's a thing called the 'history' button, using which everyone can see that Libyan Army (1951–2011) and Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) have a history of years, whereas the articles created by you (Libyan National Army, Libyan Air Force) are mere days old. Everyone can see which are the original articles and which are the forks. Trying to save your articles from deletion by pretending that the original articles are the forks is not going to help. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. Not that surprising given ignoration of rest of my post. So let me repeat it clearly, you created article dealing with armed forces of Libya from 1951 till 2011. I created article dealing with armed forces of Libya throughout the whole history of Libya. Clear enough? However if you are suggesting that 1951-2011 articles should be merged into the ones you nominated for deletion, I agree. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to National Liberation Army (Libya) – WP:POVFORK and copyvio. – Same applies to its sister article discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Ground Forces.
What this article does, is uses sources form the Gaddafi era to make statements about the current military on the new "free" Libya. It falsely claim a continuity between the Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the National Liberation Army (Libya) (or what ever military Libya now has). This is not true, the Jamahiriya forces were decimated and totally wiped out in the Libyan Civil War. The new army is being built around revolutionaries and rebel fighters, i.e. practically from scratch. For this new army we cannot use pre-2011 sources. Anything said must be based on fresh new sources about the post-revolution army. It may be, that some people or even small units have moved from the old army to the new. If this is so, we need sources to prove it. Some of the old Soviet arms have been taken into service, for this we need fresh sources. Most likely the Soviet arms, what ever remains will be abandoned and new weapons will be bought from the US and the West.

Even more complicated is the fact that the Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the National Liberation Army (Libya) are or have been fighting a bloody civil war. There is absolutely no way we can squeeze two sides of a war into the same article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to adress several points. No copyvio, if you can find one, source it. Secondly - as I wrote twice before, it was you alone who moved the article without any consensus on the talk page and without any backing of source. Thirdly - Armed Forces of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya existed only at one phase, before that it were Libyan Arab Republic Armed Forces, before that Libyan Royal Armed Forces. Now they exist in new one. Following this - you claim that is beeing built from scratch is a nice one, however it goes against situation like for example in case of Rwandan Defence Forces which were decimated even more after genocide than Libyan, yet article says they were founded in 1962. Or Iraqi Armed Forces founded in 1921 although Iraqi military was formally disbanded by CPA on 23rd May 2003 and formed officialy anew months later. Till dissolution of CPA it was under foreign authority. Other examples include Republican Forces of Côte d'Ivoire where opposition forces led by Ouattara defeated with international help Gbago government forces and as you can see on Second Ivorian Civil War article page, military of Ivory Coast is included as combatant. Armed Forces of Liberia is another example, country went through two civil wars, both times won by anti-government forces. Yet, article states they were founded in 1908. Spanish Army article states that these forces were established in 15th century. Surely, I dont have to tell you that between now and than, government, with armed forces on its side, was defeated numerous times. Most recently in Spanish Civil War. I could find more, but I think I made my point- Although your claim that formation of army in current form is right now focused on integration of militiamen into its structure (and structure of ministry of interior, let´s not forget about that one) is true, it´s commanders were officers in pre-war army, air force and navy is composed in vast majority, if not solely, of professional soldiers which enlisted also before war to army. Hence we can use them. It is true that post-war phase should use solely post-war sources, however they are scarce and from those several are used. Wether new weapons and from where will they be bought is irrelevant. Royal army was equipped mostly with western arms, after coup it shifted towards Soviet weapons, however it doesn´t change anything. And although I wrote extensively about the issue of NLA, I will once against repeat that it is not any military organization, nor ever was. It is collective name that has been used during war for all militias and defected personell which was, however vastly outnumbered. So there is no need to squeeze two sides of war into the same article, simply leave pro-Gaddafi side with military, while NTC forces with NLA - ie all armed anti-Gaddafi forces. Can´t really see an issue here. That is if you still do not believe that National Liberation Army is current armed forces of Libyan state. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per nom, but move National Liberation Army (Libya) to that page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete and move NLA (Libya) per Kudzu1. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete and move per Kudzu. Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and NO moves or merges how are people supposed find information when they are looking for the article "national liberation army" , what do you people claim that the "national liberation army" does not exist anymore or is somehow "irrelevant" , that amouts to WP:ORIGINAL Ocnerosti (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Nyttend's deletion of Libyan Ground Forces, bypassing the AfD process, on the absurd basis that duplication of Wikipedia material on Wikipedia was plagiarism : "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unattributed copying of much of Libyan Army (1951–2011))" Anarchangel (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing absurd about it. Unattributed copying between Wikipedia articles is a copyright violation under Wikipedia's licensing terms and conditions. See WP:CWW: If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. Also note that discussion of another deletion is not relevant to this deletion discussion and, if needed to be discussed, should be done at WP:DRV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was seems to have already been deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Corradini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a well-presented article, but it is about a sixteen-year-old footballer who plays for the local team in a small Italian town with a population under 7,500. He is evidently a keen lad, who started playing for a team "affiliated to Juventus" at 12, but this is far short of the notability standard of WP:NFOOTBALL, and no notability other than football is indicated. I have already twice deleted this per WP:CSD#A7, but on its third appearance an A7 was declined, and the author removed BLPprod and maintenance templates, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article fails both WP:BLP for sourcing and WP:GNG for coverage. As well, there is no assertion of notability here -- this is a youth club player for non-notable teams, which does not meet notability standards for WP:NFOOTBALL. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. This article has been repeatedly recreated by multiple users (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fccorra -- a SPI page that has remained open for an unusually long time!). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT. Sources do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:FOOTBALL, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Article does not make a qualifying claim of notability, anyway. Sorry, but this reeks of self-promotion, with pretty obvious socks/meats involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and relevant football guidelines. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete but without prejudice per Jorgath's argument. However, if someone recreates the very same article then CSD G4 will apply. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kesha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly formatted list for an artist with a minimal output (1 album, 1 EP). Most of this is covered in her discography page. Article itself is poorly formatted, unsourced (unreleased songs, supposed songwriting credits) and uncategorized. - eo (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Poor formatting and lack of categorization are fixable, as is lack of sourcing; if a song proves unverifiable, just remove it (see, e.g., WP:NOTCLEANUP). Whether this is a useful list in addition to her discography is another question. Past AFDs seem to have varied between merging/redirecting and keeping. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs by Ashley Tisdale, a keep, was for a recording artist with a similarly-sized discography. See Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers for more comparisons. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simple as this, WP:OR farm of leaked tracks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced and insufficiently coherent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Kesha has a relatively modest output quantity-wise to this point, a separate list of Kesha songs seems redundant considering the detail of her discography page. I don't believe an exact threshold has ever been established, but perhaps this list would be appropriate after another album or two. Gongshow ^Talk 07:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow, but without prejudice towards recreation when her output passes a reasonable threshold. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esmond Pitt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of adequate notability. Louiedog (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete full of unreferenced claims. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Vanity page, no notability as we understand the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my usual rule of thumb is that if a bio describes its subject as an "entrepreneur", then it's probably a vanity page of a non-notable businessperson. This does not appear to be an exception to that rule. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I would add that people described as entrepreneurs nearly always turn out to be the very opposite of entrepreneurs, i.e. to have worked for large, well-established organisations rather than establish businesses themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greife (Airforce)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence for this usage: no Google hits, references in article do not support it. Prod was removed without comment by creator. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promoting a 'neologism' allegedly based on a spelling mistake. Nothing in 10 pages of ghits, even after removing Brandon Greife and Dale Greife from the search parameters. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced foolishness. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up one day or hoax (take your pick). This may even qualify for speedy deletion as unreferenced nonsense. Note that not one of the "See also" links leads to anything using the term greife. The one "reference" is nonexistent. The single "External link" does not show anything using the term greife. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be speedied as "unreferenced nonsense", sorry. Unreferenced doesn't come into speedy, and it's understandable, so WP nonsense also doesn't apply. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article author notes that they hope to get it into Webster's in three years. We're not for things made up one day, for any reason. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons. Risker (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:Neologisms. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entertunity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism, for which I found eight ghits. Four are Wikipedia (one deleted), three are predating the alleged creation of this word by a company (info was in now deleted article), and one is incomprehensible. The three uses of the word are in probably unreliable sources - blogs, etc, and will most likely be unconnected to this article anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." The first, deleted version of this article included: "The term was first coined in 2012 by the founders of Stellman Global Agency (SGA)." That has been removed, but it is clear that (a) the term is very new and (b) it is being pushed by its inventors. Wikipedia is not here to help with that. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:NEO - Wikipedia is not a place to spread the usage of a neologism. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a pure neologism. There are hardly any Google hits for this word once you exclude citations to Wikipedia itself and mis-scanned publications which did not actually use the word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entertunity is a term derived from the words entertainment and opportunity ... to denote ceasing new ventures through strategic opportunity management. "Ceasing" is probably more accurate than the writer's actual intention, whatever it was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs. delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Park Cable Car[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no sources and the subject matter isn't likely to be independently notable. It's an attraction at the Ocean Park theme park, and that's a good place for re-writing some sourced material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cable cars on this scale are definitely notable. We have many articles on specific attractions inside theme parks (Haunted Mansion, Goliath (Six Flags Magic Mountain) for examples). This topic has received significant coverage, even from The New York Times. [19] --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for the NYT to describe it [20], [21]. Notable enough for the NYT, notable enough for WP. Collect (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong: While the cable car system meets notability requirements being that it appeared in The New York Times, it does not make sense for it to have its own article if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park. Since this article is relatively short and not likely to be expanded being that no one really cares about the cable car system's history or features except for those working or visiting the park, its contents can easily be added as a section of the Ocean Park article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park" What about articles like Disneyland Railroad and ExpressTram? Jeffrey (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the length of those articles. Look at the length of sourced material in this article. When merged and the length of this subject matter in the parent article grows it can break out again and be replaced by a summary section. That's the way topics should get attention and grow. There isn't enough sourced material as of now to justify a stand-alone article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep per Oakshade and Collect. The system is notable and this article got a lot of room for expansion, such as its technical specifications, accidents, demand, arrangements at time of service suspension, and comparisons with the Ocean Express. Jeffrey (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong per The Legendary Ranger. The stub is four sentences long, and based on the sources there doesn't seem to be much that can be reasonably written about this cable car system. It makes sense to merge this with the theme park it belongs to. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the obvious solution. If that unbalances the target article, it clearly needs to be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Parker Cable Car[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources to determine that this is independently notable. Three sentences unlikely to grow larger - I suggest merger into another article's history section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very weak reason for deletion. There is more than enough here for a stub, and in the future we may also have text about its cost construction how it worked, its demolition. Wikipedia is not improved by removing small articles. With a topic as old as this it is not surprising that online sources are weak. Before deleting this a proper newspaper search should be conducted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge. I want this to qualify for an article but sourcing is extremely weak. No results in Google Scholar, only one in Google Books and a dismal 36 in a regular Google search, most of which are either from the blog gwulo.com or from flickr.com. It's hard to establish notability with results like that. If we can find one other quality reliable source with significant coverage, my vote would shift to keep. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good argument for merger, where the sourced info can sit in an umbrella article until more sources exist to take it out. Eventually everything is independently notable, but while it grows this is a better way for an encyclopedia to organize and present the information. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep While the English name doesn't get many search results, I searched for the Chinese name and got quite a few more, several of which seem to support notability; this isn't surprising for a cable car in Hong Kong. I can't read Chinese, and would appreciate if someone who can could tell me how good the Chinese results are as sources, but it looks like this is a pretty well-covered topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative would be to merge it with both the peaks that it connected, both of which have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm afraid the system didn't connect two peaks. It connect a pass with somewhere near the coast. Jeffrey (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Warzycha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) with the explanation "might fail gng but not "uncontroversially"". The article does indeed fail WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable footballer. Jared Preston (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another of the plethora of recent MLS draftees who are yet to play. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budo Jake and Rolled Up[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable web show (Rolled Up) and host of said web show (Budo Jake). Source entirely to primary sources and blogs; there don't seem to be any reliable sources whatsoever on the subject. Google News finds nothing on Budo Jake (I didn't bother searching the very generic term, "Rolled Up"). Created by paid group account, WP:AN#Expewikiwriter. 86.** IP (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - can't find any reliable sources for Budo Jake, as would be required to meet WP:BIO. Rolled up has even less coverage - "as reviewed on itunes" seriously?! It's very close to coming under A7 to be honest. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both My searches found nothing to show that this person or his show pass any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Finney[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I started to investigate the claims in this article, they began coming out a lot less notable than it sounded. So, to take the major claims of notability:

1. Prodcued several films. No, he didn't. That implies he was the producer, he was not. He was one of many producers on a few films, and always had a couple people higher ranked than him. The highest named rank he got he got was co-executve producer on The Pact - but that had five executive producers, and was just a TV movie for the Lifetime network [22]. He was also one of four co-executive producers on a film called "All's Faire in Love" [23], which also had several full executive producers. This is not as notable as it sounds, and it highly inflated, in a manner meant to advertise him

2. Wrote scripts to major movies. No, he did uncredited script work, and the sources for it are unreliable. This is the source for him being on The Puppet Masters: http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp15.Building.the.Bomb.html - there is no source for Maximum Risk, and IMDB doesn't credit him. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117011/fullcredits#cast - these are questionable claims, and inflated at best.

3. Lawsuit against Robert Downing Jr: There's a brief mention of it on page 2 of http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/02/11/robert-downey-jr-takes-one-day-at-a-time.html - however, again, it gives him sole credit for something he did as part of a group.

4. The books. The books that do not have any coverage in the news or scholarly press whatsoever, and whose publisher uses a blogspot page. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demon_Days-Angel_of_Light

Quite simply, this article ridiculously inflates his modest, non-notable achievements. It fails WP:NOTABILITY, has issues with WP:NOTADVERT, and, just for the final issue, this is one of the articles created by paid sockmaster group account Expewikiwriter. See Wikipedia:AN#Expewikiwriter.

I think this should be deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was looking at the claims of not being mentioned on the Puppet Master script and well, it looks like the reason Finney wasn't credited on the script used in the movie was because he didn't write the script used in the movie. He worked on an alternate copy of the script, one that was pretty much doomed before Finney was brought on to redo it with another writer. From what I gathered in the article, the rewrite was done only done because contractually there had to be a rewrite and there were never true intentions to film the script. So in other words Finney was called in to work on a script that never went anywhere while the original script writers got to work on one that eventually was filmed. All that aside, Finney's mention on the article is insanely brief and is more of an aside than anything else. So considering that this doesn't show notability, we're left with a HorrorNews.net review of one of his books and a link to a site (Screen Writers Utopia) that doesn't appear to be something that would be considered a WP:RS. I'll still look and see what I can find, but I'm leaning towards delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked but there's just nothing out there to show that Finney is a notable person.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. I've pared down several of the claims in the article and removed the more overly promotional text.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tokyogirl. Clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Valfontis (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Krizan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet the criteria set down in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), specifically the baseball section. A college player who was selected low in the 2011 MLB draft, but has not played MLB. References are primarily local news, no sign of significant wide coverage of the subject. A discussion at DYK is ongoing regarding this, and two other articles, which has stalled. I have listed all three articles here to generate some proper discussion on the topic, so that it can be decided once and for all in the proper manner. (Discussion: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball)) Harrias ^talk 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 11:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG, including in national news (USA Today and ESPN.com) and nonregional coverage (aside from Texas newspapers, there's papers cited from Springfied, Ohio, Grand Rapids and New York). Besides, from WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." These articles have multiple sources independent of the subject. It shouldn't matter that they don't meet NSPORTS, they meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". I would let this article pass due to the National record that has set this player apart although this in and of itself does not pass WP:ATHLETE. In addition, the detail beginning with his high school careeer, gives me the feeling of a fairly complete biographical sketch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just coming back to say that his NCAA record pushes him past WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge This is a well-written article but I don't see how the subject is any more notable than any of the dozens if not hundreds of college and minor league players who've been deleted or merged. Just about every good Division I player in a major sport has received coverage like this in local or regional outlets. — NY-13021 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCOLLATH, Krizan has "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team", which is demonstrated by his All-American status.--TM 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He may not meet WP:BASE/N but he meets WP:ATHLETE, specifically WP:NCOLLATH, by virtue of setting the NCAA Division I record for doubles. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the doubles record may be a better DYK hook for him than merely All-American. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. I'll bring that up at the DYK nom page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a first-team All-American and NCAA record holder elevates subject above the "dozens if not hundreds of college and minor league players" who have received some media attention, per WP:NCOLLATH. - Dravecky (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOWBALL KEEP. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Duncan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. I understand that under WP:PROF there should be proof of significant academic achievements by Ms. Duncan. She is significant because she worked on a fluorspar project in the U.S. during WWII, a time when the U.S. was the leading producer of fluorspar. Mineral of the Month Undead q talk Undead q 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment that it is premature to delete this article. It is still a stub in need of some expansion, but that requires locating the appropriate source materials, most of which are in paper format only. Have you tried verifying academic achievements of a woman paleontologist from the 1940s? Let me tell you, there is a lot of legwork! Challenges aside, I would say that the biggest indicator of notability is the fact that the Smithsonian Institution Archives chose to accession Duncan's personal papers for inclusion in their collections. If the manuscript curators of that Institution believe Duncan to be notable enough to preserve her papers in perpetuity, shouldn't Wikipedia editors entertain the possibility for at least a little longer than 3 days? -Sarasays (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarasays and it appears to pass WP:PROF based on "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Sarah (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarasays. This person is a prominent war worker, not simply an academic. I'd also like to suggest that scientific contributions to the WWII war effort be considered as fulfilling WP:PROF, which says the "scholarly discipline" should be "broadly construed" rather than restricted to standard academic literature. Additionally, I see her master's thesis called "a classic in its field." Djembayz (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academics seem to have a hard time on Wikipedia. These people tell you the number of their publications in meters high !!! And in sport and entertaiment BLP stubs remain unchallenged. That's not good --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Helen Duncan is covered in reasonable depth by reliable, independent sources (the first two in the list of references). There is no need to invoke the specialized criteria in WP:PROF. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sarasays and RockMagnetist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of her contributions to geology. WP:PROF does not so much apply, since she was a working scientist and not a academic. --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sarasays and SarahStierch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this clearly passes the WP:PROF test, both because of the strategic importance of fluorspar at the time of her work, and because women pioneers in this field were rare, hence noteworthy. ServiceAT (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a sufficiently notable person. - Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Should not be deleted. Maile66 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per just about all of the above, snow close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the General notability guideline due to large number of references and so does not need to pass WP:Prof as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Duncan's papers are held by the Smithsonian Institution Archives, which gets this subject 100% over the bar in five seconds in my opinion. LINK. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: HOly moly. Nominator gets a black mark for this one!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Days (novel) and Demon Days-Angel of Light[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prods. Created by paid group account Expewikiwriter, and pretty obviously non-notable. For example, the second book's publisher's webpage? Hosted on blogspot. (As for the first book, here's the pblisher's website. Try to find the book without leaving the site and googling it.) Google news finds one result for the query "Demon Days" Finney, and since both novels have the phrase Demon Days in their title, that should show up all reviews (and, just to make it worse: That one result? From a press release aggregator). Scholar finds a big fat zero (once disambiguated by adding Finney). I really don't think this is at all ambiguous; it's a clear delete for lack of notability. 86.** IP (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was looking at the review from HorrorNews.net and I can't tell if that's a guest reviewer or a regular one, as I know there's a big difference there and people can submit their own reviews.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge and redirect to author's page or delete. There's not enough reliable sources out there to show that the books merit their own articles, but might be worth a mention on the author's page. (Although the notability of the author himself is somewhat dubious, but then his article isn't the one up for deletion.) The sources that were previously on these articles included non-notable blog reviews and links to amazon pages. Generally speaking, if you have to link to Amazon to provide a source then that's a sign of non-notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged all pertinent data, which wasn't really all that much. The only thing worth adding was the mention of it formerly being a screenplay and the HorrorNews.net article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to delete. The author doesn't seem to have much or any notability, at least not enough to merit an article himself, so I just think these should be deleted. Any pertinent data has been merged and I'll see if I can find anything to show that Finney has notability, but it's not looking all that good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started looking into Finney, after your first comment. Such ridiculously inflated claims! See WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Finney. 86.** IP (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Both fail WP:NBOOK. SmartSE (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Can't find multiple, substantive, independent, reliable sources via Google/News/Books. Thus both fail WP:NBOOK. Valfontis (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nagathihalli Chandrashekar. —SW— ^express 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News (2012 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet released movie. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect for failing WP:NF and start of pre-production work. Secret of success (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have options other than outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is appropriate only if at least a single reliable source exists. Otherwise, the article falls under the criteria for speedy deletion for being an obvious hoax and the creation of it is considered vandalism, per Wikipedia:CSD#G3. If there are sources, I'm fine with a redirect. Secret of success (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, the sources have been given below, I'm opting to redirect it. Secret of success (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for a short while AND Redirect title to Nagathihalli Chandrashekar. What we have here is a film slated to be released in May 2012... less than 60 days... and though a bit weak currently, the topic is not entirely without soucability,[24][25] and we might reasonably expect more as release approaches. My thought is that we can remove it from mainspace and place it in a location where it might benefit from collaborative editing until ready for a return. And in the meantime, it can be spoken of contextually in the notable filmmaker's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Schmidt's plan. 86.** IP (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unhola (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sources indicating notability. Perhaps those with better understanding of Finish or access to Finish sources would be able to opine more meaningfully. ^Bongo_matic 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hangover Helpers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very funny and interesting idea, but I'm really not sure if we can consider notable a company whose activity is after party cleaning, making food and serving (non-alcoholic!) drinks to its customers. On the other hand, the sources exist; it is apparent from our article and from the first pages of the G-Search result for "Hangover Helpers" Boulder (Huffington Post, ~~http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_19634597~~ Denver Post, CU Independent, Agence France-Presse etc.) The coverage is not only 'local', Colorado-based, and I'd say weak keep. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mockery of WP doesn't it. WP:GNG allows all sorts of crap in as an article. Free advertising. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mockery of WP, Alan. I doubt they care that much. Not a free advertising. It isn't easy to persuade media to write about you. Rather a stupidity of today's people, media and world in general. We are (among other things) an encyclopedia of our times. We cover also the stupidity of our times. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've omitted to read both the articles by Denver Post properly and I confused the links, apologies. I thought about it a bit more and I think this case may also constitute WP:NOT#NEWS, since all the sources are rather repetitive, mentioning only 'one interesting idea' of a 'starting company'. That's all. Let's see what others say. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clever startup ideas from college students do occasionally get a flurry of press coverage from local sources. This is the business page equivalent of a standard human interest story. I don't believe that it establishes the sort of significant effect on history, culture, or technology that would turn this into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about this. Just a cleaning company with a gimmick.NealeFamily (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is the rationale in the above !vote a personal opinion, or based upon the availability of reliable sources about the topic? Numerous reliable sources are available that cover the topic significantly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per User:NealeFamily, this is a non-notable startup firm of cleaners with one witty gimmick. The citations don't add up to a row of beans really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that additional reliable sources that cover this topic significantly have been added to the article as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not really, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it does not yet appear to be a major player in the recovery business, but could be sooner or later. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does a topic with many references from 2010 confer with the information at WP:CRYSTAL? Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including Yahoo News India, Agence France-Presse News, USA Today, The Huffington Post and Time Magazine's Newsfeed:

""Hangover Helpers" to clean up post-party houses!". Yahoo News India. November 29, 2010. Retrieved March 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Hangover Helpers: Post-Party Cleaning Service Will Change the Morning After Forever". Time Newsfeed. 2010-11-30. Retrieved 2012-03-28. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Hangover Helpers Clean Up Your After-Party Mess So You Don't Have To". Huffington Post. November 27, 2010. Retrieved March 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"US entrepreneurs offer to ease hangover hell". AFP News. November 30, 2010. Retrieved March 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
* Associated Press (November 27, 2010). "Who ya gonna call after party? Hangover Helpers". USA Today. Retrieved March 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Hangover Helpers To The Rescue!". K-Hits 104.3 Radio (Chicago), (Sourced from CBS News). December 1, 2010. Retrieved March 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"CU-Boulder grads start 'Hangover Helpers' business". Boulder Daily Camera. November 26, 2010. Retrieved 2012-03-28. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG based on Northamerica1000's listed sources The Steve 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...sigh...!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, no matter how small a company is, as long as some sources can be dug up from anywhere around the world it is entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Looks like we are gonna get a lot more articles about businesses. Hey, advertising execs, just get that company into the news somehow and you will get yourself a free advert on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia, the free business directory that anyone can edit." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one news story isn't enough :) Three is my usual threshold. Two if its the NYT or something. But where have you been? Wikipedia has been a free business advert for at least 5 years now... The Steve 07:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty low threshold isn't it? There are HUGE numbers of news article created every day on all sorts of obscure topics. Anyways, I been around a while. Seen a lot of stuff. Seen more business article bein written as WP got popular. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it is :D The Steve 05:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the nomination, How is this topic "non-notable"? It clearly passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia's core notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not always determine if an article is notable. There are individual notability guidelines that determine the grounds for retention or deeltyion, eg. WP:PROF. There is no guideline for companies so it is up to the consensus that we arrive at here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a specific notability guideline page for companies. See: Notability (organizations and companies), which covers both organizations and companies. This topic's notability also passes the criteria on that page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are usually reliable, possibly (though some of them are a bit marginal on the reliability front), but not substantial - they're all basically 'ho ho ho, a jolly cleaning company with a merry gimmick ha ha ha' which is designed as a quick flash at the end of the news rather than being anything serious in the way of informative coverage. And here we are trying to immortalize the firm. Well done the marketing executives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not give explicit reasons for keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, see WP:ORGIN, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." (et al.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines, with plenty of links provided. Delete-votes are from people objecting to the policy. If you don't like the policy, I'm afraid you have to change it, not ignore it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the policies are fine, we just have to obey them. Delete Advertising, whether or not the gimmicks are found amusing (WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to keep.) WP is not a directory of companies and we are not obliged to give space to companies with a clever marketing line, trick, or jingle, even if they have managed to get a few trivial mentions in the press. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. The coverage is all from a 5 day period in 2010. The guys likely sent out a press release, which got a surprising splash of coverage including wire services, but it was still just a splash of news coverage. See WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, it's very unlikely that such a small company would receive any coverage at all vis-a-vis just sending out press releases. Rather, the national and international news sources likely picked up upon coverage from Boulder, Colorado and Denver, Colorado news sources, found the topic to be notable and of interest to its respective readership/viewers, and then published their own respective articles/broadcasts. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Also, which part of WP:ORG does the article supposedly fail? It's an entire page of guidelines. After perusing the page, the topic actually appears to pass all of the criterion on this notability guideline page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody out There (David Archuleta song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "bonus track" only available on deluxe or special editions of the artist's album Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Qualifier in title and improper capitalization (out) shoot this down as a redirect candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. No sources, not much to be said about this song. It could be covered in main article on artist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choke the Word[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local band of questionable notability. Google news search on "Choke the Word" Denver shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, unreliable sources and social media, but little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements: I'm in the process of expanding and updating the article. I've made a couple of changes so far, and will make more over the next couple of days. XON2000 —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, March 21, 2012‎ (UTC).; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. Its claim to be the first group to fund an album using their fans is not borne out by the blog sources. Sionk (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this group in reliable sources; does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Requested by author G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Avigdori[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional bio of subject lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of independent sources provided have significant coverage of Avigdori. Nothing more found. Bio claims he "starred in Steven Spielberg's Munich (film)" but it was only a minor part. It says he is "known" for his work in The Uint and 24 but his parts there are as Arab Man and IRK Security Guard, both in single episodes. Avigdori lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions. Bio asserts importance through other peoples acheivements but notability is not inherited like that. Bio uses puffery (eg. "ground-breaking", "innovative", "unique") to exagerate claims of notability. Combining the lack of coverage, the lack of significant roles, the puffery and the misinformation this page should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate the article for deletion. It was already placed in the speedy deletion category but the speedy deletion was stopped by the admin. I don't support the article any longer. If the administration wants to delete the article, I won't be giving any foul reasoning to put up a debate.
--Inlandmamba (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ENTLibStar (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable as an actor. Any notability would have to derive from his business ventures (MoonQuake, Actors Pages, etc). Since one of the first hits for Actors Pages is "Is actors pages a scam?" I'm not very hopeful, but not done a thorough search yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nobody apart from the nominator has expressed a "delete" or "keep" preference in three weeks. Sandstein 06:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, no reason given by author. Non-notable institute of a notable university; fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Redirect to parent university article was attempted but reverted by original author. Nothing here worth merging. I advocate deletion as this is an unlikely search term for a redirect. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize I made an error in posting this to the log, but I can't figure out where. I'm quite embarrassed. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've got it sorted out. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thanks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hate this nomination. It's a nicely done article and a massive amount of work, and THIS is where we're gonna have a notability challenge?!?!? Carrite (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (Sigh). As I said in the nomination, I don't challenge the notability of Vilnius University. I'll even gladly assert that the IIRPS at Vilnius University is notable enough to merit its own lengthy section of the Vilnius University article. My evaluation, however, is that the Institute is not notable enough to fork unless the main Vilnius University article is getting ridiculously long. I honestly appreciate the amount of work that went into this article, and I approve of this content being on Wikipedia, albeit pared down significantly. Save as much as you can, please! But I can't support keeping this as a separate article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There Shall Be Showers of Blessings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I'm the only contributor to this article, and that only reference from a magazine makes me feel that it has not achieved enough notability, so I think this should be deleted. If someone gets sources, please then add those to the article. Thank you. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, and creator/only significant contributor calls for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Perfection[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not a single valid source that says they are called "American Perfection." This seems to come from one Bleacher Report article, which says, "Discussing the stable's appearance on tonight's edition of Smackdown, the villainous valent wrote: "Watch Smackdown tonight on SyFy channel. I'm looking forward to watching my stable in action...it's pure 'American Perfection.'"

Assuming "American Perfection" is their name, it makes sense, due to Swagger's All-American gimmick and Ziggler's Mr. Perfect-like persona."

So this is all seemingly based on assumption. BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need an article for this group since does not seem to be enough unique coverage of the group that the relevant sections for the two wrestlers would be too large and it would also be consistant with the way previous tag team articles are handled. also if this is kept it should be moved to something like Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger unless there is evidence provided that the group is actually called American Perfection.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the name american perfection has been authorised by WWE and a trademark for the name was registered a month ago. On a recent edition of WWE Superstars, Matt Striker was also notd as referring to the team by this name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.194.148 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a verifiable, written source?--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To disprove the above statement, I have done a trademark search on American Perfection. The only hit leads to an abandoned trademark application that has nothing to do with WWE.

American Perfection - abandoned trademark--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Hitti (closed as speedy delete)

This is a cluster nomination of an interconnected series of Edwin Hitti-related articles that have been left behind after the main article on the subject was deleted. Showing a consistent pattern of incurable vanity and copyvio problems, these all contain copied text from Edwin Hitti's own promotional websites for these non-notable entities. No reliable sources appear to be available to prove notability. The constellation appears to have been constructed to give credence to Mr. Hitti's (apparently non-existent) empire of Islamic business organisations. I would have CSD-deleted these myself as G11/G12, but the number of articles led me to feel a discussion was worthwhile. Tristessa (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please can you salt these if deleting; you'll notice a few have been tendentiously recreated by Mr. Hitti and/or friends. --Tristessa (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Biggs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources. The coverage found seems to either be trivial, from unacceptable sources, or very local or limited in scope. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage previously to satisfy notability and a year later, I am still only able to find the same sources as last time. Insufficient coverage to meet our inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have notified all the participants from the first AFD about this second nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A substantial section in the book The Art of Faery and indication of further coverage ([26]) suggests that she is notable. Google Books suggests that more coverage exists in other books. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only significant references seem to be in The Art Of Faery and its sequel; these are books of fairy art which include work by Biggs, and therefore without closer study I'm not sure if they count as independent (if you're mentioned in a book you contributed to, that doesn't necessarily prove notability). In any case the book and sequel are probably only one source together. There are claims in the first AfD that she originated a new style and is important for this, but where is the evidence? I'm willing to change my mind, but right now I don't see enough evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable No NYT or other news mentions. No solid hits even using googlebooks search for anything we can even read a bit of. Sorry - but even my loose standards are not met here. Collect (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's great. I'll just tell all the other sources that aren't the New York Times to pack up and go home, then. That'll save them some time, and embarassment too, as I am sure they won't want to fall foul of your standards, them being so loose and all. Anarchangel (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Michig, the link you have has nothing to do with the subject. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun article "5 Things I Have to Have Now: Fantasy Artist Linda Biggs" about "a Baltimore native and fantasy artist whose works are collected around the globe"? Is it a different fantasy artist named Linda Biggs? --Michig (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "5 Things I Have to Have Now" article appears to be a regular column in which local local personalities are interviewed to list 5 things they have to have now. (See this search [27]). In particular, I was able to find that the Baltimore sun has the article without the pay wall here. The article is more of an interview, and not reallty about Biggs. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as an artist – just making and selling works of art or craft isn't sufficient for notability. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CREATIVE , there is complete lack of major awards or recognition. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brighton & Hove bus names[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I can only find references to the website of the company and to a self-published photobook ([28]. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I can only find references to the website of the company and to a self-published photobook." Did you actually look? I found these in five minutes:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/1999/02/24/Brighton+Hove+Archive/5168403.YOUR_NAME_COULD_GO_ON_THE_SIDE_OF_A_BUS/ - 1999

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2001/03/31/The+Argus+Archive/6782376.Bus_named_after_much_missed_driver/ - 2001

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2001/03/15/Brighton+Hove+Archive/5152291.So_just_who_are_those_names_on_the_buses_/ - 2001

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2005/09/27/The+Argus+Archive/6805094.More_big_names_for_buses/ - 2003

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2004/08/03/Brighton+Hove+Archive/5090644.Argus_veteran_joins_city_bus_roll_of_fame/ - 2004

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1550798.Buses_named_after_well_known_city_figures/ - 2007

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4439116.New_names_of_Brighton_and_Hove_buses_revealed/ - 2009

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2009/03/21/Local+news+%28general_news%29/4219897.Brighton_war_hero_Henry_to_be_honoured_with_bus/ - 2009

http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2010/10/15/Letters+to+the+Editor+%28argus_letters%29/8456303.Tommy_Farr_Bus_Naming/ - 2010

http://www.busandcoach.com/featurepage.aspx?id=6452&categoryid=0 - 2012

Arriva436/talk/contribs 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching on "Brighton & Hove bus names". Off course, naming the buses is a nice project, but sourced only by the local newspaper, related websites and a self-published book is really not convincing (but opinions can differ from mine) Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that there was more than just the company website and that book that you found. The local newspaper has been reporting them pretty frequently, over a ten+ year period. Of course, it's not likely to get much wider coverage outside of Brighton, but then again, neither are any of the other Brighton-related transport articles I suppose. Arriva436/talk/contribs 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone advise we if Wikisource would take this information? That would seem like a good home for this information (linked, of course, from the article on Brighton and Hove buses on Wikipedia). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton and Hove (Rose Collis; 2010; ISBN 978-0-9564664-0-2) has a brief mention. More extensive is the coverage in Pride and Joy: My Amazing 25-year Journey with Brighton & Hove Buses (Roger French; 2010; ISBN 978-0-9565740-0-8), which is essentially the official history book of the company. A book, whose name escapes me at the moment, that was solely about the names and the history of the "scheme" was published in 2004. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to my comment: the book whose name escaped me is the one referred to above by the nominator ([29]). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section in the article on the company is adequate - a few examples there would be ok, but this article is unencyclopedic.--Michig (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A valid stand alone list that would be too long to include in the parent article. The peculiar bus naming convention is notable - [30] [31] [32].--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is overly trivial, indiscriminate information. Such coverage as this practice has received appears to be strictly local. Sandstein 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly trivial but unless I am missing something also mostly unsourced. Many names are red links which are not normally included in lists anyway. It seems to contain a lot of original research. Bus naming can be covered adequately in the company article.--Charles (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsourced yes, but OR?! Definitely not: http://history.buses.co.uk/history/fleethist/busnamesintro.htm Arriva436/talk/contribs 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kubigula. Rcsprinter (gas) 15:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is a local newspaper is good enough? Don't think so. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like continuing coverage in the Argus, plus at least one article in the The Guardian, which is not local. It is somewhat trivial, but it looks to be notably trivial, at least in my opinion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to BitPass. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mperia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable defunct company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you speedied it, Alan, and I removed the CSD since it was a longstanding article with a potential claim to notability, I was wondering what research you did to confirm it is not-notable? Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having done some research now, I'd say it makes most sense to merge and redirect this article to BitPass, which was the company that operated Mperia as part of its sales/pricing technology.[33].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the merger, if you're ok with it and no one else stumbles across it that opposes, I'll close this now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Looks good to me, you can go ahead and close whenever you like. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by author request.. Sandstein 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato pickle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Better merged with a page covering a pickle in Indian cuisine, too short to warrant its own article. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 04:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 04:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, while it may be "notable" as defined on WP, there is so little to say about this topic. It can be one sentence in another article, or even an item within a sentence, such as: "Pickled vegetables, including tomatoes, etc..., are popular in Indian cuisine." BigJim707 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first instinct would be to merge and redirect to South Asian pickle, but if you look at the available sources you'll see that pickled tomatoes are a feature of American cuisine as well as India and other Asian countries. Since it's a multi-regional thing and not just an Indian one, the article should probably be expanded into a proper stub. Clearly the sources exist, the article just needs time for someone to dig through them and pick out the good stuff. (Which I'm willing to do.) Steven Walling • talk 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Pickled tomato or Pickled tomatoes (following the lead of Pickled onion, Pickled egg, Pickled pepper and Pickled walnuts), expanding the article to include, well, pickled tomatoes in general, as the topic appears to be clearly notable - while there's the usual caveats for gHits, a gBooks search for "pickled tomatoes" turns up 3,910 hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Indian pickles are different from American ones, and I think its quite wrong to say that a "Tomato Pickle" is same as "Pickled tomatoes" because Indian pickles often have elaborate recipes and sometimes are delicacies on their own. I really don't know a lot about American pickles, so if my reasoning is wrong somewhere, feel free to disregard it! Thanks, Lynch 7 13:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Over the past couple of weeks, this user has made pages for Sweet sour lemon pickle, Carrot Pickle, Red chilli pickle, Green chilli pickle, Garlic pickle, Ginger pickle, Amla pickle, Mixed pickle, Murabba (which is a type of, you guessed it, pickle) and Mango pickle. I haven't gone through all the other pages he's created, but I'm betting many of them are also on the topic of phallic-shaped, preserved fruit. Many of these pages have no references, and/or amount to little more than a recipe page for creating a type of pickle. At the very least, we need to merge these all onto a single page and clean them up.JoelWhy (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notable enough to have an article of its own, but I really don't know what the article should consist of. I mean, we really can't have recipes or anything of that sort; and unless someone can dig up sources on the history of tomato pickles, the articles will remain stubs. We could consider merging into something like "List of Indian pickles" or something like that. Lynch 7 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the least we should merge all of these pages. We have a Wiki page on Pizza. However, we don't have a Wiki page on Pepperoni Pizza, Cheese Lovers Pizza, or Anchovie Pizza. We do have a page for Chicago-Styled Pizza, but Deep-dish pizza, Stuffed pizza, and Pan pizza all redirect to the Chicago styled pizza page. As the old saying goes, if it's good enough for pizza, it's good enough for pickles.JoelWhy (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Oh! We are in pickle! No way i see this article will grow unless we decide to make it a cook-book. Infact letting it stand as a single page will just invite editors to write how their mom makes it. Sanjeev Kapoor 1 and Tarla Dalal 2 both have n-types of pickles. The searches also have some non-pickle recepies. Bad sorting. I guess its better to merge all these with South Asian pickle. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also be okay with merging to that article. Steven Walling • talk 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yea, I'm fine with merging it (along with the score of other pickle-themed articles) in to a single page about Indian pickles.JoelWhy (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any decision about this article should be applied to several similar articles added by the same author—all very short and better merged somewhere --Greenmaven (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator started a new List of Indian pickles and asked for deletion of all his previous 'pickle page' creations (see this discussion for further clarification). I've redirected the names to the relevant sections in the list, this was the last one I found. I realize that some of the titles might be ambiguous, but redirect to List_of_Indian_pickles#Tomato_pickle seems to be the best solution at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been speedy deleted at 10:59 today by User:Sphilbrick as G7. This procedure could be closed by any admin. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet learned how to close an AFD; I should learn how, but want to do so when I have time to clean up any mess I might create. I hope another admin will come along and close this AfD as moot.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to USS Collett (DD-730). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Collett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one's a bit of a head scratcher. He appears to be a routine WWII casualty, but has a destroyer named for him. Darned if I can find out why. Aside from this Time magazine mention and a couple of brief bios, I'm coming up empty. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- "John Austin Collett was born 31 March 1908 in Omaha, Nebr., and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1929. He was killed in action during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands on 26 October 1942, while commanding Torpedo Squadron 10 in Enterprise (CV-6)." (Underlining mine) [34] Crosses points 5 (Played an important role in a significant military event; or) & 6 (Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People. Dru of Id (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a warship named after him seems sufficient to make him notable, whatever the reason.

—WWoods (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A torpedo squadron isn't a substantial body of troops (otherwise we'd be up to our eyeballs in squadron commanders), nor does it say he played an important role in the battle. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the ship article - people who aren't otherwise notable who had ships named after them should probably have a (very) short blurb in the ship's article, so this makes sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge It may be that there's no published information about this man beyond what we have. There's not a WP article about every Medal of Honor recipient either, so having a ship named after you doesn't guarantee notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yup, I think people who've had major warships named after them are most definitely notable. And in answer to Colapeninsula, there certainly should be an article on every MoH recipient. The fact there isn't yet is neither here nor there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The catch is, a destroyer is not a major warship - those would be (in WW2 era) aircraft carriers, battleships, and (arguably) cruisers - but not "tin cans". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said major warship, not capital ship. A destroyer isn't a small patrol vessel, which is what I was getting at. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough - but cruisers aren't cap ships, and no country bigger than Holeinwallistan considers a tin can a major warship. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ship article - only Pacific VT squadron commander notable in of themselves is Lt Cdr John C. Waldron, commander VT-8 at the Battle of Midway. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africa & Science[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While unusually difficult to search Google generally for due to its title, Google News, Scholar, and Books yield no significant results. Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. While it looks like a worthwhile publication, without other sources it can not pass WP's notability standard. BigJim707 (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this article passes our general notability guidelines. I wasn't sure what to do with this article when I discovered it, so I asked at WikiProject Academic Journals and WikiProject Africa, but received no response at either of those venues. For the record, I said this on its talk page: "I'm not really sure how notable this publication is. A Google Search for its title does not yield any relevant results beyond its website (though I'm aware that the phrase "Africa & Science" can be used in other contexts). There aren't any Google Scholar results either. Do other reliable sources exist about this publication?" Graham87 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for "Africa-and-Science" newspaper instead does return several more results. You may want to review the search results with that query. Diego (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, most of them are from the newspaper's official website, and those that aren't are just trivial mentions. Graham87 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw Graham87's note at WPJournals, but didn't immediately see anything helpful and postponed my response therefore. I still don't see anything here, so I guess we should delete it. I agree with BigJim707: sadly. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of third-party sources that could establish some notability for this journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Kent, Virginia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Kent Middle School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm split as to rather to delete this. Middle schools are not normally considered notable. However, for many years this school was located in a historic building (New Kent High School and George W. Watkins High School), but at the same time, this wasn't the school that made history and the school is no longer located in the historic building. I slightly lean delete, but I'm conflicted D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to article on the school district or town per convention RadioFan (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to New Kent, Virginia per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Barrow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLPPROD contested by GarethJohnston90 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played at a fully-pro football. Also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Since he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article speedily deleted as an April Fool's. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Mesa Dam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An April Fool's joke... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon1 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Franklin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable. If it's true that he was the first black candidate for U.S. Senate then that could be enough for notability, but I can't find a source to verify it. Comatmebro (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can see some political contributions by someone of that name, and the death of a NYC subway artist of the same name, but nothing to establish Wikipedia:Notability. If sources exist, they're buried or offline. Dru of Id (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This gets past the hoax hurdle. Dru of Id (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while admiring that a former pedicab driver and current podcaster had the gumption to face off in a senate campaign,[35] such action fails WP:POLITICIAN. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here that amounts to notability. And it is not true that he was the "first black Republican candidate for Senate," not by a long shot. In addition to two senators during the Reconstruction era, there was Senator Edward Brooke from Massachusetts (1967-1979). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe by its context within the article that the assertion is intended to be "first black Republican candidate for Senate from Hawaii"... (in a heated primary which he lost),[36] which seems a plausible assertion, but essentially lacks verification. I've sourced the part about his participation in the 1986 Hawaii primary, but cauld not find anything about him being specifically the first anything. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Scalby School. v/r - T P 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere Over The Rainbow / Wonderful World[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over The Rainbow / Wonderful World

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's subject is completely non-notable. It is in every respect a "garage band release" article, talking about YouTube hits, and there is no appropriate sourcing available.

NOTE: Nomination point has been fizxed.Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 01:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable song. Do you really thing we should delete a song that has been performed by Louis Armstrong, Sam Cooke, Tony Bennett, and other famous singers? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. My comment above is withdrawn since the object of the nomination has been changed. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm not sure why Wonderful World was linked on this discussion. The disambiguation page is necessary. I've no opinion on the specific song that is the apparent reference. older ≠ wiser 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article link in this AfD links to the Wonderful World disambiguation page (apparently in error). Hopefully the nominator can update the nomination to point users to the correct article. Sending message to the nominator momentarily. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the message and have updated the nomination point to the appropriate location. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 04:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this AfD is not Israel Kamakawiwoʻole's famous medley of these two songs (which medley does not currently have its own article), but rather about a 2010 fundraising record released by a high school in Yorkshire. Here is a single local news story about that record. I didn't find anything else. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some sources found:

Harrow Times: Popularity grows for Harrow charity single
Filey & Hunmamby Mercury: Chart hopes for school's song
Scarborough Evening News: Ellie's record soars into charts

and a passing mention here:

Daily Mail: Would you tell YOUR child she was dying of cancer? Heather didn't and she believes it prolonged her daughter's life...

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scalby School. Per WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS, individual singles (the rendition of a song as performed by a particular artist, as opposed to the song overall) usually do not merit their own articles. This single didn't hit an official chart (although it did hit the Amazon and iTunes charts) and thus I don't think it even merits a separate section within Over the Rainbow. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scalby School, per the rationale presented above by User:Metropolitan90. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beasley Coliseum. v/r - T P 14:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friel Stadium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any evidence that there is such a thing as Friel Stadium at Washington State University. There is a Friel Court at Beasley Coliseum at the University, which seems to be the basketball court at the Coliseum. Search for Friel Stadium turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beasley Coliseum, I agree with the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not redirect. There is no such thing as Friel Stadium. A redirect is erroneous and misleading. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it hurt, really? Apparently somebody thought it was called Friel Stadium. I'm sure he's not the only one because the building is located on "Stadium Way". So there is actually some evidence of it being a plausible search term.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, it does hurt. Because of one person's error and Wikipedia's high profile on the World Wide Web, we now have at least nine websites propagating the false information that there is a Friel Stadium at WSU. See [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. And that is only the first four pages of a Google search. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects correct exactly such errors and don't let them perpetuate. If you don't want those mirrors around forever, listen to me. They may have to build a Friel stadium.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beasley Coliseum. Perfectly reasonable (if incorrect) search phrase. Redirect aids the search in this case. Redirect to the correct venue seems the superior alternative to deletion. Deletion might make the target harder to find. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I took the liberty of creating Friel Court as an obvious and useful redirect. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mohamed Bouazizi. Or elsewhere as subsequent discussions may determine. Sandstein 06:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolations in Tunisia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This may belong on the Bouazizi page, but I'm not sure it warrants an entirely separate page. JoelWhy (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mohamed Bouazizi. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be expanded, there was also a wave of self-immolations in Algeria. Tree2q (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, either to Mohamed Bouazizi, or, per Tree2q, merge this article and self-immolations in Algeria (and any other similar ones) into a single Self-immolations in the Arab Spring article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jig-Ai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources to support. Cloudz 679 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 18:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, delete.--Yopie (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jemima Abey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. The individual does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ENT, specifically she has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). A role on Eastenders is mentioned in the article, however the role consisted of three episodes in 2006. I also did a Google news and full LexisNexis check for coverage prior to PRODing the article and could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would qualify her for inclusion under general notability guidelines. This actress may well be on her way to meeting notability criteria, but I don't see that she's there yet. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably more relevant the the Eastenders role is a significant role in Hex, appearing in 13 episodes, and As If, appearing in 5 episodes. All in all I felt this was an unsuitable prod candidate due to these roles.--Michig (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep looks like a borderline case to be sure, but I'd say the work described above and in the article just counts as the required work to meet WP:ENT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kettle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a podcaster who seems to only rely on primary sources. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Article lacks references and the text gives no reason to support notability. Does not pass WP:BIO standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article, but if others agree that the actor is not notable enough to support having his own article, then I am happy for it to be removed. Christophee (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep Initially, I see the fellow as meeting WP:ENT, and then in searches I see that he is sourcable for his work in theater as well.[46] While I see that it was poorly sourced only to IMDB when nominated, I see its potential. And THAT is something we can address. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. That Google search digs up a lot of repetition of a few articles, mostly reviews where the actor is a small part of a larger work. As I am reading WP:ENT and WP:BIO, he does not qualify under notability requirements for this website. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hoffman Marsh. v/r - T P 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Channel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2000 foot channel with no economic importance. article content easily covered in the Point Isabel/Hoffman marsh articles. (i added a navtemp before realizing how small the subject was) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Hoffman Marsh. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why i always forget to propose a merge and redirect. you are correct of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it should be redirected to the marsh or Point Isabel article, but either seems fine as long as people can easily find the information.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Oral Laser Applications[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was my first created article and then I forgot about it and didnt modify it. The topic is notable, but I have to say that it does not cover the topic and does not make it notable. It is badly written. It is my fault as I didnt modify it and nor did any other user take part in it. Yash t 101 :) 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Gnews reveals no in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this could have easily been speedy delete. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is article is completely pointless. It is poorly written and has virtually no references or citations and hasn't done since August 2011. I feel there is no justification for keeping this article and it needs to be deleted. The list of songs for example is nothing but pure opinion/OR/POV Christian1985 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. It's pretty hopeless at the moment but it isn't hard to find sources that could be used (e.g. Google News). A lot of the songs that the nominator removed could be sourced. There are songs that are pretty obviously about Thatcher, e.g. Notsensibles' "I'm in Love with Margaret Thatcher", Atilla the Stockbroker's "Maggots 1, Maggie 0", Pete Wylie's "The Day that Margaret Thatcher Dies", Hefner's "The Day That Thatcher Dies", Frank Turner's "Thatcher Fucked the Kids", The Beat's "Stand Down Margaret", etc., etc. There's definitely an article to be written here even if what we have at the moment isn't it. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are lots of sources that could be used here. Keep and improve.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think this "article" is completely pointless and at most it should be a properly referenced section in the Margaret Thatcher article. This "article" on its own is a shambolic unreferenced list. Christian1985 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unreferenced. A little effort in adding references and very little of it would be unreferenced.--Michig (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, submitters argument sounds like wp:idontlikeit. It is referenced, albeit poorly, and bad writing is not a reason for deletion. Greglocock (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - the criterion for keeping any article isn't whether the article is currently well sourced, but whether it could be - to which the answer is resoundingly Yes, there are thousands of reliable sources out there. As for this list, firstly the criterion - is something a cultural depiction of the iron lady - is crisply defined; secondly, there are certainly many major works including films, dramas and satires about her, as the forest of bluelinks proves. And finally, there are already some RS in the article. No doubt the article can be improved with more citations, but as regards keeping, there's no case to answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's not for deleting. The nominator hasn't really given a good reason for deleting, just for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.